Ben Harnwell, Jenny Beth Martin, and Mike Davis all appeared on Tuesday’s WarRoom and shed light on a troubling disparity in how justice is applied in politically charged cases, mainly focusing on the contrasting fates of Steve Bannon and Lois Lerner. This debate highlights the broader issue of political weaponization within U.S. governmental institutions.

Harnwell pointed out a stark contrast between the treatment of Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor, and Lois Lerner, the former IRS official implicated in the Tea Party scandal during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Bannon, who is currently serving a prison sentence, was convicted for defying a subpoena related to the January 6th investigation. His imprisonment, Harnwell argued, serves as a prime example of the severe consequences faced by those who challenge the political establishment.

In contrast, Lerner, who oversaw the IRS’s scrutiny of conservative groups, faced no such repercussions despite significant evidence of misconduct. During her tenure, Lerner’s office was accused of deliberately delaying or denying tax-exempt status to Tea Party organizations, a tactic widely seen as an effort to suppress conservative political activity. When Congress subpoenaed Lerner to testify, she invoked the Fifth Amendment and gave a prepared statement but did not answer questions directly.

Her testimony was seen by many as a calculated attempt to evade accountability, yet she faced no criminal charges or substantive penalties for her actions.

Harnwell and Davis criticized the lack of accountability for Lerner, asserting that the Obama administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to act decisively. This, they argue, underscores a broader pattern of selective justice. According to Davis, the inaction by the DOJ under Obama is emblematic of a political bias that shielded certain individuals from consequences while aggressively pursuing others. "Obama was the OG for this weaponization of our law enforcement, and it’s been on steroids under the Biden administration,” Davis said, reflecting on the continuity of this pattern.

The discussion highlighted how Bannon’s case starkly contrasts with Lerner’s. Bannon’s legal troubles stem from his refusal to comply with a Congressional subpoena, which he argued was overly broad and infringed on executive privilege. Despite his arguments, Bannon was sentenced to prison, illustrating the severe legal risks faced by individuals who challenge or defy the prevailing political narratives.

Harnwell used this contrast to underscore the perceived double standards in justice. He pointed out that while Bannon is imprisoned for his defiance, Lerner’s actions, which had significant implications for political activism and free speech, resulted in no legal consequences. This disparity, Harnwell argues, exemplifies a troubling trend of political weaponization where certain individuals and groups are targeted for punitive action while others escape accountability.

Davis echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the need for a reformed justice system that applies the law evenly, irrespective of political affiliation. He suggested that a future Trump administration could address these imbalances by holding accountable those who have exploited governmental power for political gain. This would involve not only prosecuting those like Lerner who have evaded justice but also ensuring that such practices are prevented in the future.

Harnwell, Martin, and Davis together revealed a deep frustration with America’s current state of justice. The cases of Steve Bannon and Lois Lerner serve as potent symbols of a broader issue: the selective application of justice based on political considerations. As the debate continues, it remains crucial to advocate for a fair and impartial legal system that upholds the rule of law for all individuals, regardless of their political affiliations.

For more context, watch the full panel discussion with Harnwell, Davis, and Martin from Tuesday’s WarRoom:

Mike Davis: Lawfare’s “On Steroids Right Now Under The Biden-Kamala Regime”